EL PASO — When President Barack Obama visits Fort Bliss today, he’s expected to tout his record as commander-in-chief and try to claim the upper hand in a debate over the possibility of deep, automatic cuts in military spending.
The visit comes a day after the close of a Republican National Convention that sought to introduce presidential nominee Mitt Romney as a plausible alternative to Obama as commander of U.S. military forces, and four days before Democrats gather to renominate Obama.
Several experts said this is the rare presidential cycle in which the Democrat has a clear advantage on national-security issues — and they added that Obama has the better argument about military spending. But they said both issues will be overshadowed during the remainder of the campaign by the health of the American economy.
“National security really won’t be a pivotal issue in part because Obama’s done a pretty good job,” said Mark McKinnon, a communications consultant who worked for former President George W. Bush, and now works for No Labels, an organization that works to end political gridlock in Washington, D.C., this week in an email. “But, also, of course, because the economy is dominating the debate.”
Robert Dallek, a prominent presidential historian and author of “Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power,” agreed.
“It clearly takes a back seat to economic concerns,” he said of national security. “It’s clearly with consequence, of course, and the Romney camp is trying to raise concerns about Obama’s stewardship.”
Wednesday was termed by some as “foreign-policy day” at the Republican convention in Tampa.
Romney flew to Indianapolis to speak to the American Legion and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice addressed the convention. Each played up the importance of American leadership on the world stage and accused Obama of weakening that leadership.
“For the last four years, President Obama has allowed our leadership to diminish,” Romney said. “In dealings with other nations, he has given trust where it’s not earned, insult where it’s not deserved and apology where it’s not due.”
McCain and Rice also faulted the president for not assuming a more aggressive posture toward Iran and Syria.
By contrast, Obama today is expected to highlight how he is ending American combat commitments overseas. During his remarks to soldiers, he’s likely to remind them that on his last visit to Fort Bliss, exactly two years ago, he announced an end to combat operations in Iraq — which he now touts as a “promise kept” on the White House Web site.
Obama also is expected to tell the Fort Bliss soldiers — many of whom continue to rotate into Afghanistan — of his plans to wind down American operations there.
It’s the smarter political strategy to talk about ending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq than to engage in saber-rattling toward Iran and Syria, said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Korb also served as assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.
“The public is tired of wars,” Korb said. “There’s no support for going after other places.”
However, an end to combat in Afghanistan in 2014 might seem a long way off — particularly for some of the soldiers the president will address. Just last week, Obama ordered 4,000 Fort Bliss soldiers to deploy to the war-torn nation this winter.
For some of the president’s own supporters — and for supporters of Republican insurgent Ron Paul — Obama’s way of ending the Afghan war may be perceived as too little, too late.
“His persistence in Afghanistan, which became deeply unpopular on his watch, rather undercuts his prince-of-peace image — particularly with the once-important anti-war types in his Democratic base,” said John Mueller, a professor at Ohio State University who has written extensively about how politicians have exploited fears of terrorism. He also wrote the 1973 book, “War, Presidents and Public Opinion.”
But for most Americans, Obama’s national-security strategy might be seen as a success, Korb said.
Having ordered the operation that killed Osama Bin Laden and charted a path home for combat troops, the president has for the first time in 45 years flipped the political advantage on national security to the Democrats, Korb said.
“People forget,” Korb said, “in the 60s, it was the Republicans who were weaker and then it was the Democrats who got us into Vietnam.”
Similarly, Obama had some help from his predecessor in turning national security into an issue that works to his party’s advantage, Dallek said.
“The Iraq war and the frustrations of Afghanistan and the failure to capture Osama Bin Laden left Bush under something of a cloud,” Dallek said. “I don’t think one can see Obama as particularly vulnerable on those counts.”
Republicans are using military spending as one line of attack on Obama.
Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., have taken to attacking Obama over the possibility that the national security budget could suffer $500 billion in automatic, across-the-board cuts if Congress doesn’t act before next year. On a visit to Fort Bliss in January, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called the possibility “nuts.”
Romney and Ryan, who is chairman of the House Budget Committee, say they would undo the cuts retroactively. They also say they would keep military spending at 4 percent of gross domestic product and still balance the federal budget — although they haven’t specified what cuts they would make elsewhere.
Korb was asked whether it was hypocritical to criticize Obama for the possibility of automatic cuts, known as “sequestration,” since they stem from House Republicans’ refusal last year to raise the debt ceiling.
“Oh yeah,” he said. “Ryan particularly. … Republicans in the House — led by people like Cantor and Ryan — demanded $1 trillion in cuts in existing programs and another $1.2 trillion by December if the committee couldn’t agree. They couldn’t agree and so what that means is that this goes in. It wasn’t Obama’s idea.”
Korb added that Obama could turn Ryan and sequestration to his advantage — a way to highlight what he considers the extremism of the tea party wing of the GOP.
McKinnon, Bush’s former communications consultant, said Romney would be wise not to attack Obama on national security.
“Romney’s best strategy would be to acknowledge Obama has done a good job and just move on to another topic,” McKinnon said.
Dallek, the presidential historian, said that even by picking Ryan to run with him, Romney diverted attention to sequestration, the debt ceiling and social issues instead of the topic he wants front and center — the anemic recovery of the American economy.
“Romney seems to constantly strike the wrong notes,” Dallek said. He and his advisors “appear to have something of a political tin ear.”